by Allan Fish
(Denmark/France 2009 104m) DVD1/2
Paradise nuked
p Meta Louise Foldager d/w Lars Von Trier ph Anthony Dod Mantle ed Anders Refn art Karl Juliusson
Willem Dafoe (husband), Charlotte Gainsbourg (wife),
Aside from the mild divertissement of The Boss of It All, Lars Von Trier had been quiet since Manderlay. The criticism he received for that film, verging on savage vitriol, cannot help but have contributed to the depression into which he sank. Antichrist is a return to the no-holds-barred filmmaking of Breaking the Waves and The Idiots, films to tear audiences in half and split critics so cleanly down the middle as to seem like Toshiro Mifune had sliced them asunder with his katana. One look at the poster, at the opening credits, fills one with foreboding. Some might compare it to The Blair Witch Project and there are similarities, but it’s the structure of the final ‘T’ in the title that illuminates most, formed as it is by an Egyptian ankh; life and death instantly seen to be in the balance.
A married couple are plunged into despair when, whilst they make love, their small son is killed when he plummets to his death climbing guilelessly out of a window. The husband comes to terms with it in time, helped by rationalising the event through his being a trained therapist, but his wife winds up spending over a month in hospital. They return home, but quickly decide to go to a woodland shack which they call Eden and to which the wife had gone with their son the previous summer with the intent of finally finishing a thesis that in the end remained unfinished. Once there, the husband tries to help his wife, but she quickly descends into alarming madness and sheer sadism.
Nobody could deny that Antichrist is pretentious, and one could not rebuke anyone for saying deeply critical things about the film, but it’s one of those that, however much it may end up repulsing you remains so powerful, so true to its intentions, that it leaves you so emotionally shaken that you cannot help but be floored by it. The dedication to Tarkovsky at the end is somewhat redundant, for anyone au fait with the Soviet master’s oeuvre will notice the parallels throughout. And when Gainsbourg’s distraught wife bemoans how she was unable to complete her thesis one cannot help but equate it to Von Trier’s own psyche, and to his inability to complete his American trilogy. Manderlay was to have been followed by Wasington (sic), but it wasn’t forthcoming, and one has to doubt now whether it will ever be completed. Antichrist is rather like healing a wound by cauterising it with a lit torch. Everything is about finding a release, and as such the wife sinks further and further into her madness, relying on sex to obtain any emotion, and winding up in Ai No Corrida and Blind Beast territory, where the pleasure/pain principle is taken to the utmost, both in terms of pain received (self-mutilation of the vagina) and dished out (I won’t spoil it by saying what she does to her husband). Like a Tarkovsky film directed by Takashi Miike, it’s shockingly brutal, emotional, as raw as a ritual skinning, religiously symbolic with it’s talk of angels and Satan, and yet given to explaining itself in what can only be described, to quote the film, in somewhat glib terms, such as when Gainsbourg makes the understatement of the century when observing that “my grief pattern is atypical.” Dafoe brings his own baggage from Von Trier’s Manderlay, not to mention the religious parallel to his playing Scorsese’s Christ 20 years previously. He commits himself to the film admirably, but his work somehow pales beside that of the increasingly and astonishingly feral Gainsbourg, in one of the bravest, most controversial, most physically and emotionally naked performances you will ever see. So frightening, like a high-pitched shriek of terror in the night. And for such a spiritually troubling film, offered up at the altar to Tarkovsky, there’s the visuals, external shots out of Solaris and Mirror with trademark Tarkovsky shots of silver birches, here curled back into themselves in symbolic barbed wire contortions, holding the couple captive in a torture straight out of the Malleus Maleficarum before glimpsing Von Trier’s Star Gate, his Red Room, his The Zone, his torturous nirvana.
“Torturous nirvana” seems like a good way to describe this film. I’m on record with my thoughts so I won’t add more here. I am a little surprised to see it just scape the top 50, as it seemed to have all the earmarks of an Allan high-ranker.
Just another trashy torture porn film of the decade, only this time done by a critically acclaimed (also annoying and pretentious) art house director. Many have argued the other way, but when it comes down to it, is Von Trier’s film any different from Roth’s or Miike’s from this decade? Antichrist may have a more polished look and some very good performances, but, like other torture porn films, brought little to the horror genre. Lacking any sort of humor and/or social commentary that made the horror films of James Whales, George E. Romero, David Cronenberg, and Sam Raimi memorable or even their subtlety, Antichrist just comes off as a big named director trying to make an “artistic” horror film as if there hadn’t been artistic achievements in the genre before(just look at some of the great films by the directors I listed). Its always fascinating to see a big named director take a stab at a horror film and many times it’s yielded great cinematic masterpieces (just take a look at Kubrick’s The Shinning or Masaki Kobayashi’s Kwaidan), but Antichrist just doesn’t join that category. While never visually boring, the film falls flat conceptually, making it’s audience endure painful and violent moments without any meaning or ideas to justify them. Even worse, some scenes just come off as silly (the talking fox, the ridiculous opening sequence) making the film even harder to get through. While I can see the film’s strengths (especially the performances), the film has never sit right with me. Maybe I’ll give it another chance, but not in a while.
That’s George “A.” Romero, and frankly I shudder to think of anything in his work being considered “subtle”, or anything in Raimi’s oeuvre being of the same quality as Whales or Cronenberg. At any rate, I’ll take Von Trier’s experiments in horror (“The Kingdom” and this, if it really qualifies as horror) over Raimi’s grade-Z cinema, or anything Romero did following “Night of the Living Dead”.
While I disagree with the majority of the content of this post, the one thing that I think is most ‘point-out-worthy’ is any inclusion of Sam Raimi and art-house horror. Over a von Trier? Laughable. (I say this as a somewhat fan of Evil Dead 1 and 2)
The negatives you list (‘making it’s audience endure painful and violent moments’), both have meaning and should be considered strengths, and is the state of modern horror. The films you list are certainly not violent or gory but are all about 30 years old. This is where horror has evolved–and to this horror fan it’s better for it; as it better articulates and reflects the world we live in (and captures the horrors of this world all the better). Lars von Trier succeeds were all good horror must: in showing that the most horrific element of said film is the person’s mind behind the lens.
To compare this to the torture porn of the new millenium is both grossly incorrect and flawed from a viewing perspective (meaning: how could someone possible watch Roth’s films and this and think they are similar?).
Jamie, how do you distinguish between “torture porn” and horror that has evolved to the level of violence and gore anu does not like. I ask this as a 100% outsider who did not even grow up with slasher films (unlike the rest of my generation) and has not seen the vast majority of horror films, torture porn or otherwise, that this decade abundantly produced. So I don’t have much of a framework for this discussion – up till now I was under the impression that you liked a lot of the movies many would classify as “torture porn” and enjoyed the grisly aspect. Incidentally, it did not even occur to me that “Antichrist” would be classified as a horror film until after I saw it and my dad told me one of his friends raved about it as the “best horror film he’d ever seen.”
Perhaps I should just wait for the intro to the horror countdown (will there be an intro?) to hear you and Troy offer up your takes on the genre and its recent directions. Already, these thoughts here fascinate me. I’m not a genre person at all, so I’m kind of excited about all these upcoming genre countdowns which will give me a new perspective on a lot of work, much of which I’ve presumably not seen.
My biggest problem with the film wasn’t that it was violent, but that it fell flat conceptually for me, which made the violence almost pointless. There have been some great horror film from this decade such as the great Let the Right One In or The Host, which both use a good deal of violence (the former probably more so than the latter) but I never had a problem with either because never did I think the violence was being used merely for shock value. Again its all a matter of opinion. I personally thought the film was pretty empty. And while I can’t defend most of Romero’s works (though I believe his work from the 70s warrant some appreciation especially Dawn of the Dead) I will defend as Raimi as a great horror film director and one whose films I appreciate more than Von Triers’ (again all a matter of opinion). As I said in my original post, I’ll give the film another chance (maybe when Criterion releases it) but until then I stand by my comments.
MM, interesting points here and I would just say that the whole ‘torture porn’ adjective being used for films is pretty baseless IMHO. Yes these films are violent, extreme, and sadistic at times but, for the most part they all have plots, characters, and other things that make up a ‘film’. I suppose for the uninititated it’s easy to jump on a few elements of a film to judge its merits, but I feel that’s just a poor way to offer an opinion on film. It’s like saying you didn’t like a western because there as too much horse-back riding. I’m no fan of Roth’s films because I feel he doesn’t handle tension nearly as well as he should for the genre he’s working in, and that he thinks it’s mostly a joke anyways (remember his debute was a horror slapstick take on a EVIL DEAD 2 like premise). That being said, Roth the person, loves some really great old horror films that are largely unseen and has worked to get many of these films available so I must tip my hat to him on this level. I do think eventually he has a decent horror film inside him though.
As far as the ‘torture porn’ moniker I do not think it applies to films (specifically all the ones mentioned). If one really had to use the term I can only think of some rally out there Japanese stuff from after the mid-1980’s, such as the GUINEA PIG series. In the most ‘famous’ of this films a man in a Darth Vader like suit straps a woman on an operating table and cuts and tortures her for 45 minutes of the films less then 80 minute running time. The film is really just an exercise in prosthetics and fake blood in a pre-CGI world, technically it’s very well done but to exist as a film it barely does. This is ‘torture porn’ if I had to use the term. If more were aware of films like this the accusations towards the modern era would certainly cease a little IMHO.
and MovieMan “So I don’t have much of a framework for this discussion – up till now I was under the impression that you liked a lot of the movies many would classify as “torture porn” and enjoyed the grisly aspect.”
Your impressions were correct I enjoy these types of films. When they are good of course. I will be very interested in many of your takes when the horror countdown does start if you are not the biggest horror fan. I am amazed with your age that you remain untouched by the slasher genre, me at 8-16 years old hunted down slashers like I was an editor of Fangoria magazine.
I mostly blame the term “torture-porn” staying around on the incessant SAW films and Michael Bay’s crap remakes, yet if anything does deserve the term applied to them, it’s THOSE films . They may have a plot and story, but it typically is just window dressing for the gore and torture.
Ah, but here’s the thing, the torture porn of the modern day is no more than the exploitation films of the 70’s and the slasher films of the 80’s (we’ll skip the 90’s, as that wasn’t a good time for horror). The genre is littered with examples of ass horror movies that pretty much only exist to get off teenage boys with gore and violence (huh, typing that out, maybe the “porn” aspect of the term isn’t too far off).
And just like in those pass eras, for every CANNIBAL FEROX you had THE BEYOND, for every SLEEPAWAY CAMP 2 you had NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and now, for every HOSTEL 2 you have INSIDE.
In other words, don’t assume it’s all the same shit 🙂
Troy, you basically say it all with this: “And just like in those pass eras, for every CANNIBAL FEROX you had THE BEYOND, for every SLEEPAWAY CAMP 2 you had NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and now, for every HOSTEL 2 you have INSIDE.
In other words, don’t assume it’s all the same shit”
You are 110% correct.
GUT WRENCHING, TORTUROUS, REPULSIVE and utterly, yes I’ll say it, BRILLIANT. Not on the level of brilliant that DOGVILLE, MANDERLAY or, I believe, his masterpiece BREAKING THE WAVES achieves, but a truly perverse brilliant. The religious parallels are just the starter in a film so laced with metaphor it really takes more than one viewing to get it all. I’ll do it a second time, but NOT in the near future. What bravery I gave to seeing it a first time needs to be rebuilt for another go. I can’t say the fulm is a pleasant experience, but it IS an experience. Don’t know if I’d define it as a horror film though. Will the big brains on this genre, JAMIE, BOB, KEVIN and TROY please chime in and rule on its definitive category? Anyway, brutality aside, Von Trier is really cooking with gas here…
I don’t know if I’d call this “horror”, per se. In Von Trier’s work, it bears more resemblance to the bloodcurdling familial tragedy of his “Medea” than “The Kingdom”. Though I like this film, I will say that it feels fairly underdeveloped to me, at times. It’s as though he decided halfway that she was writing a book on witchcraft/”gynocide”, and never really thought it through in full. Had he pursued these themes through to completion, it might’ve been comparable to “Haxan” instead of “Blair Witch”. It also might’ve become a legitimate horror-film, as well.
“Don’t know if I’d define it as a horror film though.”
I would (and will for the horror countdown), but keep this question Dennis. It’s one that we are currently dealing with in out compiling activities. What is horror? What constitutes horror? Sometimes it’s obvious, sometimes not (like I consider FACE OR ANOTHER, and PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK horror). It’s a question we hope to tackle as a group/blog when that countdown starts.
That’s funny, because “Face” is something I consider a rather pure blend of science-fiction, rather than horror. It’s explicitly concerned with the experimental procedure of a mad doctor, and examines a contemporary medical concern (plastic surgery) with an existentialist commentary. “Picnic” is another matter, though I really wouldn’t call that “horror” either– a superb mystery, yes, but its more melancholy than macabre.
I’d put this film in a lumped heap with other brutal films that are so tough to watch but as brilliant as the sadism that’s depicted… I keep thinking of Pasaolini’s SALO, Arracki’s DOOM GENERATION, Naughton’s HENRY, PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER and Schepisi’s CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH for some reason….
all good to great films you mention here (the Naughton is one of my person favorite underrated horror films), but to me this film is putting REPULSION, THE NIGHT PORTER, THE MIRROR (Tarchovsky), and AUDITION into a blender and hitting ‘frappe’.
There’s little question that Von Trier could not have been on any kind of a spiritual upswing when he conceived this film. But unlike author Stephen King, who stashed away his horrifying Pet Cemetary (which also featured the violent death of a young boy) in a drawer, refusing to publish it for several years, the Danish director, bold and fearless, and with an ego to boot, pulled no punches in this bleakest of visions. It’s a terrible place to go, but it’s thematically rich, and impossible to forget. Antichrist joins Dancer in the Dark, Dogville and Breaking The Waves as one of the controversial auteur’s greatest films.
I love “best of” lists, I’ll be revisting and looking through them. It also appeals to me that a number of your readers are willing to have a proper discussion on your blog, and not just brief “one liners”
Will be reviewing Antichrist myself at some point, to me underrated and misunderstood. There is much food for thought.
I’ll link to your site on my blog.
I would appreciate it, if you, and others, would become a “follower” and/or link on your site to my new movie + music blog, just to help get it going: http://moviesandsongs365.blogspot.com/
We can help each other discover new movies that we might not otherwise have heard of ( :
I’ve said before my feelings on this film so I won’t restate, but I (obviously) love it. To me it might have been my top pick for 2009, but I won’t quibble as I assume we’ll see quite a bit more von Trier before the countdown is finished.
Superb essay Allan.
Beautiful film! I only wish the class I help teach in film was a little more mature. Maybe I could get away with showing it in an advanced film theory class. It is so amazing. It can be interpreted many ways, and through so many lenses. Lars von Trier always impresses me.
[…] thirdly, Allan wrote beautifully about it for his 2000′s countdown, where he placed it at #50. Which led to an enjoyable discussion on the ‘torture porn’ monicker (where Troy […]